Systematic evaluation of machine learning algorithms for neuroanatomically‐based age prediction in youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application of machine learning (ML) algorithms to structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) data has yielded behaviorally meaningful estimates of the biological age of the brain (brain-age). The choice of the ML approach in estimating brain-age in youth is important because age-related brain changes in this age-group are dynamic. However, the comparative performance of the available ML algorithms has not been systematically appraised. To address this gap, the present study evaluated the accuracy (mean absolute error [MAE]) and computational efficiency of 21 machine learning algorithms using sMRI data from 2105 typically developing individuals aged 5-22 years from five cohorts. The trained models were then tested in two independent holdout datasets, one comprising 4078 individuals aged 9-10 years and another comprising 594 individuals aged 5-21 years. The algorithms encompassed parametric and nonparametric, Bayesian, linear and nonlinear, tree-based, and kernel-based models. Sensitivity analyses were performed for parcellation scheme, number of neuroimaging input features, number of cross-validation folds, number of extreme outliers, and sample size. Tree-based models and algorithms with a nonlinear kernel performed comparably well, with the latter being especially computationally efficient. Extreme Gradient Boosting (MAE of 1.49 years), Random Forest Regression (MAE of 1.58 years), and Support Vector Regression (SVR) with Radial Basis Function (RBF) Kernel (MAE of 1.64 years) emerged as the three most accurate models. Linear algorithms, with the exception of Elastic Net Regression, performed poorly. Findings of the present study could be used as a guide for optimizing methodology when quantifying brain-age in youth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".